Any recommendation apart from these books already read?

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
223
14
18
Usa
I could like the one above but it only shows the degree of trim. There was also a 10° list to port which affected the height of the red sidelight.

Gibson described the rockets as 2 points before the port beam (1st and 3rd). If they were SSE by compass, the direction described for the vessel firing the 8 rockets, then Californian was pointing SW by compass at the time Carpathia was firing rockets. (Stone said those rockets at 3:20am were in the SSW which cannot be correct because carpathia came up from the SE.)
If at 3:20 a.m. Californian was heading SW, both of her masthead lights would have been opened to the survivors. Why did they loose the sight of the Californian around the time they sighted the Carpathia at 3:30 a.m.?

Please forgive me a silly question, but what is the second masthead light in your picture?
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,358
741
273
Chicago, IL, USA
If at 3:20 a.m. Californian was heading SW, both of her masthead lights would have been opened to the survivors. Why did they loose the sight of the Californian around the time they sighted the Carpathia at 3:30 a.m.?
Carpathia was not in sight at 3:20, at least not mentioned being sighted by anyone at that time. Somewhere after that time Californian swung more to starboard shutting out her masthead and sidelights.
Please forgive me a silly question, but what is the second masthead light in your picture?
Not silly. Titanic had only a single masthead light. Carrying two was not a requirement at that time.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
223
14
18
Usa
Carpathia was not in sight at 3:20, at least not mentioned being sighted by anyone at that time. Somewhere after that time Californian swung more to starboard shutting out her masthead and sidelights.
3:20 Californian’s time was 3:32 Titanic’s time. Even if the survivors lost the sight of the Californian by 4 a.m. how many degrees she swung in 30 minutes to shut up her masthead lights, if at 3:30 she was heading SW?
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
223
14
18
Usa
If as Mr Stone testified the Californian was heading ENE at 12 a.m., and as you allege she was heading SW at 3:20 a.m,. then from 3:20 a.m. to 3:50 a.m. (the time when the last Titanic's survivor lost the sight of the Californian's masthead lights) in order to shut out her masthead lights she should have been swinging twice as fast as she did from 12 a.m. to 3:20 a.m. to shut out her masthead lights.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,358
741
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Answer this. Why should Californian, or for that matter any ship, swing at a constant rate, or swing at all once the way of ship is taken off? Need to go back to cause and effect.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
223
14
18
Usa
The swinging was in the same direction all night long. The rate might have differ a little bit. There was no wind. She was swinging the way she was because she was drifting in an eddy. Eddies have different currents. One of them moves objects sideway. This sideway current made the Californian to swing. The sideway currents are much slower than the rotation currents. She was rotating with one speed and swinging with another speed independently. Sometimes she was drifting backward. Mr. Boxhall lost the sight of the Californian’s navigational lights because they moved to the Starboard bow. He looked for them in a wrong place. Mr. Hart testified he observed two navigational lights off the Starboard bow.Mr. Gibson was able to see only a glare of the Titanic’s masthead light because the filament responsible for the Starboard side did not have enough power. For the same reason the green sidelight although it was still burning was not bright enough to see it.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,358
741
273
Chicago, IL, USA
She was swinging the way she was because she was drifting in an eddy. Eddies have different currents. One of them moves objects sideway. This sideway current made the Californian to swing.
If your going with Mila's eddy currents theory you are not on solid ground (excuse the pun). She was unable to quantify anything in terms of size or strength that could match what was reported. Stone reported: "...the night being fine and clear with light airs and calms." It doesn't take much windage to swing a stopped untethered vessel.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
223
14
18
Usa
Mila is my cousin. She got me hooked up with the Titanic. She is finishing a small book that I call “a theory of everything”.
It accounts for many testimonies and events of the night.
She does not invent the evidence, she just interpreters it.

However, let’s talk about your own book.
You as many other Titanic’s authors are trying to change the evidence in such a way
that suits your narrative.

If the Californian was swinging due to airs and calms, she would have been swinging back and forth.

Let’s assume you are right and the Titanic lost the sight of the Californian’s sidelight
and the Californian lost the sight of the Titanic’s sidelight due to the list.
Please explain why at the same time the Titanic’s masthead light lost its brightness,
and what happened to the second Californian’s masthead light. Please explain it as clear as I did in my
last post.

Please explain why Mr. Boxhall was able to see the Californian red sidelight with his naked eye,
but not the green one.

Please explain why Mr. Boxhall testified the Californian was approaching.

Please explain why Mr.Stone testified the Titanic was changing bearing,
and, no, a very slow swinging alone could not have created such impression.

Please explain why Carpathia’s rockets were seen southwest of the Californian.

Please explain why the survivors in the #8 were able to see both sidelights of the Californian in 30 minutes
or less after their lifeboat was lunched, but never were able to reach her or even get closer to her. Surely if in 30 minutes
they saw her sidelights, in two more hours they should have been close enough to see
her stern light, if of course she had ever turned it in their direction.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,358
741
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Alex, I have great respect for Mila. But as I told her, it is not enough to simply claim that it was eddy currents that caused the apparent swinging and movements described. One must be able to quantify these currents in such a way that it could realistically explain the swinging seen and the degree of approach and recession that would be enough to satisfy appearances. If that could be done, it would establish credibility for the theory.

I also believe that meteorological conditions were changing over time, from very clear (code 8) to exceptionally clear (code 9) and back again. When exceptionally clear, Boxhall was able to make out the sidelight with the naked eye, and that is what stood out in his memory. As far as the masthead light, the light was amplified in the vertical plane by a factor of about 7 if I recall correctly. The beam width in the vertical plane is about +/- 5°. This is actually a current spec as defined in Annex I in the modern day rules and regs. It allows for expected variations in the longitudinal and transverse planes due to rolling and heaving. If the combined angle of trim and heal becomes such as to exceed the beam limits, then the intensity of the beam as seen in the far field will diminish. About the time the sidelight disappeared, the trim angle was about 5 or 6 degrees down by the head and the angle of list was about 10° to port. As seen from an angle of 2 points on the bow, the combined tilting of the masthead light would exceed the beam width angle and the light intensity would be diminished. As Gibson agreed:
7627. Do you mean that it did not shine as brightly as it had been doing? - Yes.
7628. That is what you mean? - Yes.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,358
741
273
Chicago, IL, USA
From Annex I for those interested,

9. Horizontal sectors
(a)(i) In the forward direction, sidelights as fitted on the vessel shall show the minimum required intensities. The intensities shall decrease to reach practical cut-off between 1 degree and 3 degrees outside the prescribed sectors.
(ii) For sternlights and masthead lights and at 22.5 degrees abaft the beam for sidelights, the minimum required intensities shall be maintained over the arc of the horizon up to 5 degrees within the limits of the sectors prescribed in Rule 21. From 5 degrees within the prescribed sectors the intensity may decrease by 50 percent up to the prescribed limits; it shall decrease steadily to reach practical cut-off at not more than 5 degrees outside the prescribed sectors.

10. Vertical sectors
(a) The vertical sectors of electric lights as fitted, with the exception of lights on sailing vessels underway shall ensure that:
(i) at least the required minimum intensity is maintained at all angles from 5 degrees above to 5 degrees below the the horizontal;
(ii) at least 60 percent of the required minimum intensity is maintained from 7.5 degrees above to 7.5 degrees below the horizontal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexP

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
223
14
18
Usa
One must be able to quantify these currents in such a way that it could realistically explain the swinging seen and the degree of approach and recession that would be enough to satisfy appearances. If that could be done, it would establish credibility for the theory.
It is done.
I also believe that meteorological conditions were changing over time, from very clear (code 8) to exceptionally clear (code 9) and back again.
What meteorological conditions could have done it? Quantify them please. Could you also quantify how airs and calms
could have made the Californian to swing the way she was swinging.
in the modern day rules and regs
How do we know what regulations there were in 1912?
Besides it doesn’t explain what happened to the second Californian’s masthead light.


And there are still many unanswered questions that I posted in the last post.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,358
741
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Alex, you seem to have an agenda here. I suppose this theory about eddies will be able to explain all the questions that you posed as well as all the various sightings and movements, including specific examples of eddy size, rotational speeds and directions, and be able to correlate was seen from Californian to what was seen from Titanic? Frankly, I'm getting tired of all these demands for answers. As soon as I give an answer to one thing you immediately come back with a demand about another. Back in 2011, I put together a single chapter dealing with Californian from previous work that I did. There is really enough to actually write an entire book on the subject that goes into much greater detail than was possible in the limited space that was available to treat the subject at that time, and maybe one day I will. But if there is some other credible work being done to provide answers that doesn't just deal with generalities, I certainly look forward to seeing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob_Read

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
223
14
18
Usa
My only agenda is to understand what happened by the means of a friendly discussion, and you really should not be so defensive.
Aren't you interested in learning what really happened on that night?

Yes, Samuel, this theory about eddies will be able to explain most of the questions that I posed, the questions that you are not able to explain.

You asked Mila to quantify the eddy. It was a fair request.

Isn't it fair to ask you to quantify the meteorological conditions that could have changed the visibility the way you describe it was changing.
Isn't it fair to ask you how airs and calms could have made the Californian to swing round rather than to swing back and forth.
Isn't it fair to ask you to quantify the means that allowed the survivors in #8 to see the Californian's sidelights in 30 minutes after they left the Titanic, if the Titanic and Californian were 13 miles apart?


You write "Frankly, I'm getting tired of all these demands for answers. " You're getting tiered because you cannot come up with plausible explanations for my questions.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,941
607
183
Funchal. Madeira
Our understanding of the entire Titanic disaster today is through a combination of evidence, eyewitness accounts and quite a lot of intelligent speculation. Without going into specific details, we have seen several times where eyewitness accounts have been contradictory, inconsistent, inaccurate going by evidence, embellished and in some cases outright impossible. Many of the 'speculations' by trained researchers like Sam Halpern have taken into account the available evidence, considered related eyewitness accounts and then worked out the most likely scenario.
Rejection of evidence where it does not fit and speculation where evidence is not clearly understood are also two misleading habits which deny the truth, Arun
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexP

Arun Vajpey

Member
Apr 21, 2009
982
188
113
64
AlexP: Why don’t you just go ahead and explain everything if you think everybody has gotten it wrong?
Agreed completely. There are certain self- indulgent 'know-alls' who feel that they have to challenge everything that does not fit in with what they believe. Reminds me of a certain Nordic mythical creature.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
223
14
18
Usa
Agreed completely. There are certain self- indulgent 'know-alls' who feel that they have to challenge everything that does not fit in with what they believe. Reminds me of a certain Nordic mythical creature.
Except I've already explained it. Stanley Lord guilty as charged
There is a good possibility that the Californian was drifting in an eddy. It is a speculation of course, but it is a plausible speculation. The speculations that allege the Californian was swinging due to little airs and calms, that Mr. Boxhall was mistaken when he testified that Californian was approaching, that Mr. Stone was mistaken when he testified that the Titanic was changing bearing, that the survivors from the lifeboat #8 sighted the Californian sidelights after rowing for 3 hours, that the Californian was swinging in retrograde, these are are all baseless speculations. To come up with such speculatios Samuel ended up inventing evidences versus interpreting it.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
223
14
18
Usa
I Stone reported: "...the night being fine and clear with light airs and calms." It doesn't take much windage to swing a stopped untethered vessel.
I've always meant to ask you how you explain why " light airs and calms" were swinging the Californian clockwise and the Titanic counterclockwise?
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,358
741
273
Chicago, IL, USA
Titanic counterclockwise?
And where did I say that T ever swung counterclockwise?
Just to be clear, what I proposed is that the "light airs and calms" that 2/O Stone wrote about were the primary cause of Californian swinging around that night, and that the winds might have been variable in direction at times which may have caused Californian to swing at times in retrograde, meaning opposite to the general direction it was swinging most of the time. This was based primarily on the sighting of those three rockets from Carpathia around 3:20am which appeared on different relative bearings as noticed by Gibson and Stone. It was the change in bearing of the last two of those three that can be easily explained by Californian's head swinging to port, which was the retrograde direction.

And about the cause of Californian's swing, we also have Lord's comment: "but on seeing the ice, we were so close we had to reverse the engine and put her full speed astern, and the action of reversing turned the ship to starboard, and we were heading about northeast true. When this man was coming along he was showing his green light on our starboard side, before midnight. After we slowly blew around and showed him our red light." His words, not mine.

By the way, a heading of NE true was about ENE by compass. If, when Californian came to a stop around 10:30, she was facing ENE by compass as Lord implied, and if around 11:30 she was heading NE by compass, and then at 12:10 ENE by compass as Groves observed, then those observations also support a brief swing to port early on.